Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Whatever, Fisherman. But perhaps you donīt know anything about the shape or shapes, since there are no sources for it?

I donīt know, but I am asking you, since you seem so interested in the flaps and their ritualistic element.

A ritual is the repeating of the same. So the flaps may have been the same shape. What do you say?

What I already said: That you have had all the attention I am going to give you.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:

Fisherman, you said that it would have been 'surreal' if Mizen had allowed Cross and Paul (who would have had to have been in on any lie) to go on their way if he'd been told that Nichols was lying dead in Buck's Row.

Nearly true - I said that it would be surreal if Mizen let them go if he had been told that there was a woman possibly dead in Bucks Row, and IF HE WAS AWARE THAT THE CARMAN/CARMEN WAS/WERE THE FINDER/S.

It would certainly not have won them any 'policeman of the year' award, true. So what could have happened?

He was told that another PC was in Bucks Row, a PC who had supposedly asked for help. Thatīs what had happened if we are to trust MIzen. I know I do.

Cross said that he'd told Mizen that the woman was dead or drunk.

And Mizen said he was told about a woman flat on her back, nothing more. According to the Star he also said that the carman he spoke to said nothing about any murder or suicide, implicating that he said nothing of death at all.

I'll suggest a 'what if' of my own here.

WHAT? We are not supposed to do that, you should be aware of that. Itīs a no-no to suggest what ifīs. Itīs invention.
But hey, since it is also something that must be done, letīs hear it.

What if Mizen misheard him and thought that he'd said 'there's a woman dead drunk in...?'

Then I would have wanted Mizen to repeat that at the inquest. He didnīt. He only said that he was told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row.

Mizen said that he'd been told that 'you are wanted...' Maybe this phrase, which means 'your presence is required' got Mizen thinking that a fellow officer wanted his help?

No, I donīt think so. What I think is that people are far too willing to believe in scenarios thought up on no grounds at all, but totally unwilling to believe in the scenario presented by a serving PC. Why is that?

If Cross (and by implication co-conspirator Paul) had lied and left out the 'dead' bit you are right, it would have ensured that they wouldn't have been detained by Mizen.

It would make for a very good chance of slipping past him, yes. But I donīt think Paul was any co-conspirator. I think he was spirited away by Lechmere.

Paul had said that they had both agreed that the best thing that they could do was to tell the first policeman they saw. But what if they hadn't seen one before they got to work? From this it's obvious that the priority of both Paul and Cross was to get to work and not to get tied up in a police enquiry.

Not really, no. It may be that Paul would have gone on until he did find a PC. There can be no knowing, since he was never asked about it.

Even if it meant just leaving it until someone else came upon the body. There is nothing sinister going on here. Two blokes who wanted to get to work who may have told a lie to ensure that they didn't risk losing their jobs.

Iīve seen that argument a dozen times, Herlock. I usually say that lying about it could have gotten them into much worse trouble. Thatīs not to say it is impossible, but as always, I think these conjured up alternative suggestions need some sort of evidence to back them up. It becomes way too many what if:s otherwise.

i have to add a comment about your suggestion that Lechmere would have run more of a risk by walking away than staying and playing innocent. Now that is surreal! You speak of Paul raising the alarm. By shouting? As I've said before. Cross guessed that Paul was around 40 yards away. That would give him a, say, 20 second head start. Paul gets to the body in no panic (as he doesn't immediately know it's a body.) He approaches and has a look. Maybe he gives her a shake to see if she responds. She doesn't so he goes looking for a policeman (possibly shouting as he goes). Cross would have been scot free. Guaranteed. Alternatively, Paul just passes by, either a) thinking the body was a tarpaulin, as Cross originally had. Or b) just ignoring her (maybe telling himself. 'Just a drunk.')

"Guaranteed". You have to love that.
Myself, I donīt issue any guarantees. I simply say that if Paul arrived at the body, looked at it and noticed the cut neck, he may well have shouted blue murder at a time when Lechmere was still quite close and when a PC may have been in place. And it would have been game over. That risk cannot be discarded, Iīm afraid. So it was logical not to run. Once more, Andy Griffiths was adamant that a killer in this situation would NOT run.

All this aside, a confident and arrogant psychopath - and the killer was clearly a psychopath - may have CHOSEN to fool Paul for the hell of it. He may have reasoned that he would be able to get away with no inclusion of the police, and then it all went awry after Pauls interview, and Lechmere had to act upon it.
Mind you, this is a "what if" - but we agreed to use them, did we not? And I CAN guarantee that psychopaths do these things every now and then.

Off to bed now, so you have to do without me ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two scenarios then.

One: Cross said 'dead or drunk,' Mizen misheard it as dead drunk and let them carry on. Later when it was obvious a murder had taken place he knew that he would get asked by his superiors ' why the hell did you let them go?' He could have replied 'well, I had no way of knowing that she was dead. I thought that it was just a drunk.'

Two: They didn't mention the possibility of her being dead because they wanted to get to work and not get dragged back to Bucks Row for god knows how long.

I think it entirely likely that, when Cross and Paul left Nichols saying that they would tell the first policeman they met, they wouldn't have cared less if they hadn't bumped into another policeman. By chance they met Mizen but if they hadn't they would have just told themselves 'someone will have found her by now and, besides, it's not our problem.'

The Andy Griffith that you quote, I've no doubt, is a knowledgeable guy but I assume that he's not claiming to be psychic. He simply cannot know that the killer wouldn't have run.

Given the choice between stay and be on the spot with a woman that you've just killed and wait for the person approaching (who might be a police officer) and risk being searched or even just identified or walking away to almost certain freedom I think it's obvious. It wouldn't make him a psychopath it would make him a witless cretin who was also the luckiest murderer I've heard of if that was his attitude towards his own safety and given the fact that he was never caught.

Herlock

[harry]

I mean Patric Mulshaw,night watching in Winthrop Street.Said premises,in a direct line,were given as being 30 feet from the body of Nicholls.Mulshaw is reported as having been told by a passing man that a murder had been committed in Bucks Row,and he(Mulshaw)went there.No one appears to have noticed his arrival.

[Fisherman]

I mean Patric Mulshaw,night watching in Winthrop Street.Said premises,in a direct line,were given as being 30 feet from the body of Nicholls.Mulshaw is reported as having been told by a passing man that a murder had been committed in Bucks Row,and he(Mulshaw)went there.No one appears to have noticed his arrival.

Mulshaw was quoted like this: "In a straight line I was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found."

Yards, Harry. Not feet. Feet would have put him in Browns Yard or in the Greensī living room.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Two scenarios then.

One: Cross said 'dead or drunk,' Mizen misheard it as dead drunk and let them carry on. Later when it was obvious a murder had taken place he knew that he would get asked by his superiors ' why the hell did you let them go?' He could have replied 'well, I had no way of knowing that she was dead. I thought that it was just a drunk.'

Two: They didn't mention the possibility of her being dead because they wanted to get to work and not get dragged back to Bucks Row for god knows how long.

Letīs add a third one, shall we? Lechmere had killed Nichols, and he wanted to slip past Mizen with no questions asked, and so he lied about it. Mizen said nothing about having spoken to Paul, and it is likely that Lechmere had told him to walk ahead as he spoke to the PVC. Hence the wording from the press: "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street..."

Answer me this: If they prioritized getting to work before informing the police, why did they not hust pass Mizen by without a word? He could not know where they were coming from, so that would have saved time and it would have posed no risk at all.

I think it entirely likely that, when Cross and Paul left Nichols saying that they would tell the first policeman they met, they wouldn't have cared less if they hadn't bumped into another policeman.

You think that. But you donīt know that. Thatīs the crux. They (Paul) may have been determined to find a PC and they (Paul) may have been rather uniterested to do so. What applies is written in the stars.

By chance they met Mizen but if they hadn't they would have just told themselves 'someone will have found her by now and, besides, it's not our problem.'

That is a possibility. It may be right and it may be wrong. Once again, we cannot therefore use it to work from.

The Andy Griffith that you quote, I've no doubt, is a knowledgeable guy but I assume that he's not claiming to be psychic. He simply cannot know that the killer wouldn't have run.

No, he cannot. But he can apply his many years of experience of what criminals will do in tight situations to the case and give his best suggestion. And much as he is n ot psychic, I do believe that he has studied psychology after leaving the police. Here is a summary from LinkedIn:

"Completed a thirty year career as a police officer in the UK, specialising in investigation, intelligence and interviewing, achieving promotion to senior posts commanding Major Crime and then Intelligence and Serious & Organised Crime departments, leading both homicide investigations and serious crime operations. Well versed in managing risk and achieving outcomes. As a senior manager was responsible for high numbers of staff, significant budgets and change programmes as part of daily responsibility. Also extensive experience of criminal investigation training design, delivery and policy implementation. This includes development and delivery of specialist interview training, and a significant contribution to development of strategic interview policy both in the UK and abroad, including representing the NPIA in France, Canada and South Korea, and delivery of leadership training as part of the (new) College of policing. Completed his doctorate part-time (under a Bramshill fellowship), and has since published several papers, and co-authored a book, on investigative interviewing. In 2010 he was awarded the Senior Practitioner award by the International Investigative Interview Research Group (iIIRG). He is married with two children, lives in Sussex, and enjoys motorcycling and competitive ski racing

Specialties: Investigative Interviewing, Crime investigation, Management of crime investigation, Training"

He is today tied to the University of Portsmouth.

Now, all of this does not mean that he would know if Lechmere would run or not. But it DOES mean that in a choice between trusting YOUR instincts and trusting HIS, I must go with him. If any of you are close to being psychic, my hunch is that he is that person. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe you are better suited to make the call, and if so, you are welcome to explain why to me. I would not want to get it wrong.

Given the choice between stay and be on the spot with a woman that you've just killed and wait for the person approaching (who might be a police officer) and risk being searched or even just identified or walking away to almost certain freedom I think it's obvious. It wouldn't make him a psychopath it would make him a witless cretin who was also the luckiest murderer I've heard of if that was his attitude towards his own safety and given the fact that he was never caught.

You see, this is where Griffiths and I agree that anybody reasoning like this may have missed out on who is the cretin. And to be honest, if I were you, I would ask myself: "If this senior murder squad leader and doctor says that this was so, then maybe he knows something that I donīt? And then I would try to read up on psychopathy and on criminal behaviour.
Knowledge is sometimes a valuable thing. Thatīs not to say that enthusiasm and ill-grounded certainties do not have their charm, but in a choice between the two ... well, you see what I am getting at!

If I may make a further suggestion, I would use a starting point like this one: Suppose that Lechmere was the killer. Suppose that he had been in a bubble as he cut away, not hearing Paul until the latter was a mere fifty yards away or so. Suppose that Lechmere realized that there was no way he could escape undetected. Suppose that Lechmere did not know if Paul would arrive fast enough to see him backing off from the body. Suppose that he realised that if Paul did see this, he would immediately recognize Lechmere as the probable killer. Suppose Lechmere then quickly covered the wounds, hid the knife and backed away a few steps, as silently as he could, while deciding that he would try to bluff Paul, and that if this did not work, he would kill him. Suppose that Lechmere afterwards joined up with Paul to try and check just how much Paul had seen.
When we look at such a scenario, I do not see a cretin. I see a resourceful and clever man who makes the best of a very perilous situation.
You may see something entirely different, but if so, to me, that matters very little.

[harry]

Suppose Paul did become suspicious,all Cross would have to say,Ï have just found a body and was going to find a policeman,when I heard you(Paul) coming".Probably the truth.
Thirty feet or thirty yards,my response was to a poster who queried my claim of someone else being near.

[Elamarna]

I mean Patric Mulshaw,night watching in Winthrop Street.Said premises,in a direct line,were given as being 30 feet from the body of Nicholls.Mulshaw is reported as having been told by a passing man that a murder had been committed in Bucks Row,and he(Mulshaw)went there.No one appears to have noticed his arrival.

Harry
It 30 yards not 30 foot. Away.

And he is a street away to the south with buildings and a railway between him and the murder site; if he could hear footsteps or such like is open to some debate. I have no doubt he would have heard screams if there had been any but it seems there were none at the murder site.


Yes the man who approached him could have been the same who was mentioned at the inquest by the Coroner as passing down Bucks Row.

There a good thread on mulshaw by Simon Wood in the witness section. It's not too long but full of good info.


All the best

Steve

[Fisherman]

Suppose Paul did become suspicious,all Cross would have to say,Ï have just found a body and was going to find a policeman,when I heard you(Paul) coming".Probably the truth.
Thirty feet or thirty yards,my response was to a poster who queried my claim of someone else being near.

Yes, thirty feet or thirty yards, whatīs the difference? As long as you are still sailing?

[Elamarna]

Harry

Sorry I posted as you were replying to Fisherman.

I agree that there were people close by as I illustrated in a post on this thread: in the houses, Mulshaw and at lest 3 unknowns possible 4. ( the two seen close by but not in Bucks Row by Thain. And the passer by mentioned at the inquest, who may be the same person Mulshaw speaks of; maybe not.).

If he had been only 30 ft away and awake, he would have seen and heard the whole attack probably. Thinking about if he had been there Mau not have been a murder in Bucks Row that night.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman:

You ask why didn't they just go past Mizen and carry on to work?

Is it not possible even probable that one said to the other :' if we meet a copper on the way to work we'll tell him. If not, well no problem because someone else will have already found her.'

'The other man who went down Hanbury Street,' could easily mean after they had spoken to Mizen. I don't see how you can infer that Paul walked on ahead.

I don't take any kind issue with you taking Andy Griffiths suggestion over mine. But one expert isn't proof. I'd even say that at this distance of time we cannot be sure with any certainty what the killer would have done unless someone had done a detailed assessment of Lechmere's state of mind at the time. We can only go with the most obvious assessment. The ripper was never caught. He exhibited a degree of caution. He was faced with escape or brazen it out. I think I know what most would go for.

I would finally suggest that, we have a man with a body (Lechmere) in a deserted east end street. Robert Paul didn't appear to suspect him of anything. The police at the time didn't suspect him. He was believed at the inquest. And the police didn't 'revisit' him as a suspect. Nothing about a man found next to a body gave out even the slightest suspicion. Yes, if he was a Ted Bundy like psychopath, he could have carried it off. But we have no evidence to presume that. But presume it you do.

Herlock

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Fisherman!

You ask why didn't they just go past Mizen and carry on to work?

Is it not possible even probable that one said to the other :' if we meet a copper on the way to work we'll tell him. If not, well no problem because someone else will have already found her.'

If they were that callous, then why inform a PC at all? It would involve the risk of being detained. That risk would have been cleared away.
Is it not reasonable to say that if the two men agreed to underprioritize Lechmereīs find, then the obvious thing to do would be to say "Letīs just walk off and leave it to somebody else"?
You are looking for an inbetween solution, since that fits your idea. It has to be more than just walking off but less that telling the truth.
I find it convoluted. Not impossible (things rarely are), but convoluted.

'The other man who went down Hanbury Street,' could easily mean after they had spoken to Mizen. I don't see how you can infer that Paul walked on ahead.

You forgot the comma: "The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street". That tells him apart from Lechmere.
How can I believe that Paul walked ahead? Because he did not overhead Lechmereīs lies, because Mizen never said that Paul uttered a word, because if Lechmere was the killer, that would be what he would do, because Paul seems to have been less than friendly with the police, because Lechmere could use his knowledge that Paul was late to offer it as a time-saving possibility.
Itīs quite easy to believe that Paul walked ahead if you put your mind to it and use the sources.

I don't take any kind issue with you taking Andy Griffiths suggestion over mine. But one expert isn't proof.

I openly admitted that in my last post. Itīs not a question of proof, it is a question of being a suitable and knowledgeable guide to criminal behavior.

I'd even say that at this distance of time we cannot be sure with any certainty what the killer would have done unless someone had done a detailed assessment of Lechmere's state of mind at the time.

But you just said that he would be an utter cretin if he did not run. That sounded very much to me like you wanted to exclude all other possibilties.

We can only go with the most obvious assessment.

That is not ONE assessment. We must tell apart YOUR version from Griffithīs version. To him, it was blatantly obvious that the killer would not have run, given the situation, so that is the obvious assessment HE makes. You make another assessment.
Thatīs why I look at your respective qualifications to judge these matters and your respective experience of crime and murder.
Like I said, I have no idea of your merits, but I am happy to take on board anything you have to offer.

The ripper was never caught. He exhibited a degree of caution.

Yes, that is a reasonable guess. But it also applies that he may simply have been very lucky. So we cannot say to what degree he exercised caution. Mind you, I am all for then idea that he WAS autious, but I donīt think he was cautious in the way normal people are. I think he threw a lot of caution to the wind in able to be able to kill. So to me, he is more brazen than cautious.

He was faced with escape or brazen it out. I think I know what most would go for.

And on that score, I agree - most people would run. But this is not a question of statistics of the general kind. If we add the quality of psychopathy, it turns the tables for me. If that was involved, we may strike out any panick on behalf of the killer, and we would know that he did not work physically like most people do. For instance, when normal people sense danger, their muscles in the legs will contract and prepare them for flight. With psychopaths, this does not apply. They remain relaxed. With normal people, there is something called the startle reflex to consider. It is the reflex that makes us blink when something happens close to us. A fullblown psychopath will not blink if a piano falls down two feet in front of him.
So this is the kind of person I am looking at, the kind of person I am suggesting. It also applies that psychopaths generally are very good and habitual liars and that they like playing games with people on account of a feeling of superiority on their behalf.
You and I would have legged it out of Bucks Row, clearly. So would ninetynine per cent of the population.
But a psychopath would assess the matter differently. If he knew he could leave without a risk, he would probably do that. If he thought leaving would carry too much risk with it, he would stay. Sadly, there is also a third possibility: If he wanted to make a game out of things, he could well stay too - for the hell of it.
If you have not read up on psychopathy, Herlock, then I urge you to do so, none of my usual irony included at all. I believe it is a very important step in understanding the killer we are looking for. As a matter of fact, and I have said this before: If it could be proven that Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath, then I would say that he was not the killer. He could not possibly have been, the way I see it. But IF he was the killer, than he bluffed it out in a very coldblooded manner, typical for psychopaths, and he was able to think on his feet in a very narrow situation, typical for psychopaths, and he enjoyed lying his way out of things, typical for psychopaths.

I would finally suggest that, we have a man with a body (Lechmere) in a deserted east end street. Robert Paul didn't appear to suspect him of anything. The police at the time didn't suspect him. He was believed at the inquest. And the police didn't 'revisit' him as a suspect. Nothing about a man found next to a body gave out even the slightest suspicion. Yes, if he was a Ted Bundy like psychopath, he could have carried it off. But we have no evidence to presume that. But presume it you do.

Psychopaths are very convincing liars - they are etremely good at this game, generally speaking. I have no doubt whatsoever that society is swarming with such people, guilty of all sorts of crimes, who have managed to deceive the police and judicial system. Many of the uncaught serialists will be people who were treated to a cup of tea and an excuse from the police for them having to do their work and investigate them.
The police looked hard and long at Sutcliffe but did not suspect him. They looked long and hard at Christie but did not suspect him - they even had him in court, testifying and lying Tim Evans into the hangmans noose for murders Christie carried out on Evans own wife and child! And Evans had a criminal record the defence was aware of. He nevertheless lied his way out.

Married men, men with respectable jobs, men with a place in society. And killers. And psychopaths, helping them to stay undetected. The thing is, we cannot set about finding respectable married men with jobs and accuse them of being serialists - but those who ARE will regularly use lies and an honest facade to deceive the rest of us.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman:

'If they were that callous why inform a policeman at all? It would involve the risk of being detained?'

Not if they didn't mention anything about Nichols being dead.

You forgot the comma. 'The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street.'
And then, your reasons for thinking that Paul walked on......because he did not overhear Lechmere's lies......because Mizen said that Paul never uttered a word.....because Paul seems less than friendly with the police.......because if Lechmere was the killer,that would be what he would do.....

I genuinely can't believe that you are proposing these nothings just to artificially separate Lechmere from Paul. They left Bucks Row together, met Mizen together. Again you assume mystery by a kind of conspiracy theorist thinking.

If it could be proved that Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath then I would say that he was not the killer.

And I would say, if it can't be proved that Charles Lechmere was a Psychopath, and it categorically cannot, then I would say that we have to discount him.

I'd like to end this post with a question if I may.

If you got, say, 10 experts. All with the same or greater level of qualification and experience as Andy Griffiths. Do you think that every one of them would say that Lechmere the Ripper would choose to stay with the body and brazen it out rather than the far safer option of walking away?

Herlock

[Elamarna]

Fisherman:

'If they were that callous why inform a policeman at all? It would involve the risk of being detained?'

Not if they didn't mention anything about Nichols being dead.

You forgot the comma. 'The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street.'
And then, your reasons for thinking that Paul walked on......because he did not overhear Lechmere's lies......because Mizen said that Paul never uttered a word.....because Paul seems less than friendly with the police.......because if Lechmere was the killer,that would be what he would do.....

I genuinely can't believe that you are proposing these nothings just to artificially separate Lechmere from Paul. They left Bucks Row together, met Mizen together. Again you assume mystery by a kind of conspiracy theorist thinking.

If it could be proved that Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath then I would say that he was not the killer.

And I would say, if it can't be proved that Charles Lechmere was a Psychopath, and it categorically cannot, then I would say that we have to discount him.

I'd like to end this post with a question if I may.

If you got, say, 10 experts. All with the same or greater level of qualification and experience as Andy Griffiths. Do you think that every one of them would say that Lechmere the Ripper would choose to stay with the body and brazen it out rather than the far safer option of walking away?

Herlock

Herlock

The issue is that many see Lechmere's behaviour in Bucks Row being perfectly inline with that of an innocent man. The problem however is that Fisherman sees this as a suggestion of guilty. The thinking is that he is guilty and he is acting like an innocent man and such a predetermined view can never hope to be successful in finding a true resolution of the facts presented.

Just look at the case:
A man finds a body, he gives a name other than his birth one; but one under which he has legally been recorded.

That is it.

The blood flow theory, while initially intriguing fails to stand up to scrutiny.
The other murders being on his possible routes is weak to say the least.

The case for him being the Torso killer is based on the term flaps being used in both series of murders, with no evidence that the terms mean the same thing.

Can we say Lechmere was not the killer of Nichols; Of course not, just as we cannot prove
Kosminski did not do it.

What we can say is the arguments put forward to place him as the murder are no stronger than circumstantial, in some instances they are incorrect.
Could be be the killer, certainly possible.
Was he the killer.... probably not.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;418234]

Can we say Lechmere was not the killer of Nichols; Of course not, just as we cannot prove Kosminski did not do it.

Of course we can say Lechmere was not the killer of Nichols. All research end with conclusions and conclusions are based on interpretation of data.

1. Is there any valid and reliable data indicating that Lechmere found Nichols?

Yes. Therefore he could not have been the killer of Nichols, since he could not first have killed Nichols and then found her.

2. Is there any valid and reliable data that Lechmere killed Nichols?

No. Therefore he could not have been the killer of Nichols, since he could not first have killed Nichols and then found her.

Very simple to draw the same conclusion from research question 1 and 2.

And now try the opposite:

1. Is there any valid and reliable data indicating that Lechmere found Nichols?

No. Therefore he could have been the killer of Nichols, since he could first have killed Nichols and then not found her.

2. Is there any valid and reliable data indicating that Lechmere killed Nichols?

Yes. Therefore he could have been the killer of Nichols, since he could first have killed Nichols and then not found her.

These answers are impossible. He DID FIND HER.

Fisherman tries to destroy the word "found" in this conclusion, which is the only possible conclusion to draw from data, by instead postulating that Lechmere was "found" himself: "with the body".

He must destroy the word "found" or otherwise he does not own the right to interpret it into the model of his own brain.

This is the model:

"Wow! There he is: Jack the Ripper".

So by destroying the conclusion and also the data he turns Lechmere into his brain model Jack the Ripper.

And as we all can see, it doesnīt matter what people say. He has the model.

And he makes even you, Steve, talk a little nonsense.

Of course we can say that Lechmere was not "Jack the Ripper". We can say we know this. Anyone who knows the opposite?

And another thing: It is highly unethical to start such a campaign against a dead person who can not defend himself.

Fisherman is not finished with his research. He has to DISPROVE the sources but he canīt! And therefore, he should have remained silent.

Best wishes, Pierre